Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (28 November) . . Page.. 3330 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

There may be a breach of the licence but there may be no threat to public safety. In that case speaking with the owner or education may be a better process. But if there is a threat to public safety then of course the dog would be seized. The government will oppose the amendment.

MR CORBELL (5.09): If there has been purely an administrative contravention of a condition of a dangerous dog licence, then clearly that does not of itself mean that there is any danger to the public. Ms Tucker's proposal, as the minister says, will require that any contravention will result in seizure. That is overly repressive. It is not required. The Labor Party agrees with the government that it is much better for discretion to be provided to inspectors so that a dangerous dog can be seized only where it can reasonably be presumed that there is some danger to public safety as a result of the contravention of a dangerous dog licence.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 57 agreed to.

Clauses 58 to 61, by leave, taken together and agreed to.

Clause 62.

MR SMYTH (Minister for Urban Services) (5.10): I move:

No 11-

Page 26, line 1, subclause (4), omit the subclause, substitute the following subclause:

"(4)  If the dog was seized under paragraph 56 (a), (b) or (c) (Seizure-generally) because of an act or omission that is an offence against this Act, the registrar must release the dog if-

(a) 28 days have elapsed since the commission of the offence and a prosecution has not been begun for the offence and an infringement notice has not been served for the offence; or

(b) an infringement notice has been served for the offence within 28 days after the commission of the offence and the infringement notice penalty has been paid; or

(c) a prosecution for the offence was begun within 28 days after the commission of the offence and-

(i) the prosecution is discontinued; or

(ii) the keeper has been convicted or found guilty of the offence and the keeper has not been disqualified from keeping the dog, any dog, a dog of that kind or any animal.".

Mr Speaker, I'll speak to the next few amendments, because the amendments to clauses 62, 63 and 64 are the same. They have the effect of making further changes to clauses 63, 68 and 69. When that occurs, the notes in clauses 66 and 67 will refer to clause 68, which is somewhat convoluted. Subclause (4) of each of those clauses is about the return of a dog where an offence has been committed. The change to subclause (4) in each case ensures that the dog must be released to its owner when issues relating to the events have been resolved.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .